By David Williams
13 May 2010
It is not surprising the electoral system has been a big issue this week, but few would have guessed reforms would have to incorporate the polling stations themselves. David Williams reports on a bad night for returning officers
To many election night television viewers, the first reports of voters being turned away from polling stations on May 6 came as a surprising injection of real life drama amid the endless exit poll analysis and time-filling celebrity chit-chat.
But even as the focus shifted to the flow of results from around the country, the story refused to fade. By the following morning, as Britain awoke scratching its head at the exceptionally confusing political picture, it had become apparent that something had gone substantially wrong in more than a few constituencies.
It appears that those early reports were correct: hundreds of voters were unable to vote before the 10pm deadline, despite having arrived at the polling stations in time and queued for a ballot paper. In accordance with the law, returning officers had elected not to extend polling hours, leading to angry confrontations with voters as the polls closed. The scenes were mostly confined to large cities, such as Sheffield, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester and London.
In Sheffield, enraged voters staged a sit-in after queuing for up to an hour and a half before polls closed. John Mothersole, Sheffield City Council’s chief executive, has since apologised and handed back his £20,000 returning officer’s fee. In Lewisham, officials rounded voters into the polling station before 10pm, issued them with ballot papers and locked the doors until polling was complete.
In Liverpool’s Wavertree constituency, voters were turned away because polling stations temporarily ran out of ballot papers at around 6pm. Polling stations reopened later that evening, following an urgent delivery of extra supplies. Acting returning officer Colin Hilton emphasised that every person had the chance to vote. It is unclear whether any of the
turned-away voters returned.
It might be surprising to some that turnout has been cited as a factor, since the national figure of 65.1% is only four percentage points up on 2005. But this masks some much higher local figures. Wavertree’s below-average turnout of 61% was still a significant increase on 2005’s figure of 51%.
The Electoral Commission immediately launched an inquiry into the matter, to uncover whether problems were localised and isolated, or systemic. It is expected to report back next week.
The commission has long been calling for a full-scale review of the electoral system. Nevertheless, from the outset of last week’s farce it emphasised that the responsibility for running elections lies with the returning officer – a position typically adopted by a council’s chief executive.
John Turner, chief executive of the Association of Electoral Administrators, questions whether resources were sufficient this year. He explains that the cost to councils of running a general election is reimbursed by the Ministry of Justice – from a pot of money allocated in advance by the Treasury. But the funds are received well after local preparations have already begun, meaning resources are largely based on previous election patterns.
Turner says: ‘There was a great lateness in terms of providing the financial information to enable the planning to take place. These figures were provided not very much before – three or four weeks.’
But he adds: ‘Sadly that’s normal, and every election we ask for it not to be the case – for proper planning you need to know much earlier.’
David Monks, chair of electoral matters for the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers, believes the heart of the problem is that this year there were unusual surges of voters in polling stations. The system is designed to cope with a steady trickle, with only one register permitted per polling station.
‘This isn’t the end of the western world as we know it,’ he tells Public Finance. At a loss to explain this year’s surges, he adds: ‘It’s a very strange phenomenon that hasn’t happened before.’
Solace is conducting its own inquiry into what happened. It estimates that around 20 constituencies experienced difficulties.‘This is a sign of how antiquated and difficult to manage our electoral system is. It’s a very old-fashioned system, we’re flogging it to death in the twenty-first century and it’s not suitable for purpose.’
Turner says that returning officers might have wanted to split the larger polling stations into two, doubling the rate at which voters could be processed. However, this would have required twice as many staff on limited funds.
Nevertheless, Monks says that one big lesson of May 6 is that some polling stations – particularly those in big cities with up to 6,000 voters on the register – need to be split. He recommends only 2,500 voters should be on the register for any single polling station, but would also like wider reforms, such as electronic registers that enable voters to cast their ballot at any polling station in their constituency.
Monks suggests that pressure from MPs could have contributed to the strain the system was under. A late amendment to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act – which was only given Royal Assent last month – obliged returning officers to begin their counts before 2am or publicly explain why they didn’t.
‘I think some people probably took staff off polling stations to get them ready and fresh for the count… I only think the impact was marginal, though others may reveal they did that in the investigation we’re carrying out.’
With the UK entering uncharted political waters this week, and speculation rife over how long any government without a decisive majority can last, Monks might have to put the findings of that inquiry to the test sooner than many of us would like.
13 May 2010
It is not surprising the electoral system has been a big issue this week, but few would have guessed reforms would have to incorporate the polling stations themselves. David Williams reports on a bad night for returning officers
To many election night television viewers, the first reports of voters being turned away from polling stations on May 6 came as a surprising injection of real life drama amid the endless exit poll analysis and time-filling celebrity chit-chat.
But even as the focus shifted to the flow of results from around the country, the story refused to fade. By the following morning, as Britain awoke scratching its head at the exceptionally confusing political picture, it had become apparent that something had gone substantially wrong in more than a few constituencies.
It appears that those early reports were correct: hundreds of voters were unable to vote before the 10pm deadline, despite having arrived at the polling stations in time and queued for a ballot paper. In accordance with the law, returning officers had elected not to extend polling hours, leading to angry confrontations with voters as the polls closed. The scenes were mostly confined to large cities, such as Sheffield, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester and London.
In Sheffield, enraged voters staged a sit-in after queuing for up to an hour and a half before polls closed. John Mothersole, Sheffield City Council’s chief executive, has since apologised and handed back his £20,000 returning officer’s fee. In Lewisham, officials rounded voters into the polling station before 10pm, issued them with ballot papers and locked the doors until polling was complete.
In Liverpool’s Wavertree constituency, voters were turned away because polling stations temporarily ran out of ballot papers at around 6pm. Polling stations reopened later that evening, following an urgent delivery of extra supplies. Acting returning officer Colin Hilton emphasised that every person had the chance to vote. It is unclear whether any of the
turned-away voters returned.
It might be surprising to some that turnout has been cited as a factor, since the national figure of 65.1% is only four percentage points up on 2005. But this masks some much higher local figures. Wavertree’s below-average turnout of 61% was still a significant increase on 2005’s figure of 51%.
The Electoral Commission immediately launched an inquiry into the matter, to uncover whether problems were localised and isolated, or systemic. It is expected to report back next week.
The commission has long been calling for a full-scale review of the electoral system. Nevertheless, from the outset of last week’s farce it emphasised that the responsibility for running elections lies with the returning officer – a position typically adopted by a council’s chief executive.
John Turner, chief executive of the Association of Electoral Administrators, questions whether resources were sufficient this year. He explains that the cost to councils of running a general election is reimbursed by the Ministry of Justice – from a pot of money allocated in advance by the Treasury. But the funds are received well after local preparations have already begun, meaning resources are largely based on previous election patterns.
Turner says: ‘There was a great lateness in terms of providing the financial information to enable the planning to take place. These figures were provided not very much before – three or four weeks.’
But he adds: ‘Sadly that’s normal, and every election we ask for it not to be the case – for proper planning you need to know much earlier.’
David Monks, chair of electoral matters for the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers, believes the heart of the problem is that this year there were unusual surges of voters in polling stations. The system is designed to cope with a steady trickle, with only one register permitted per polling station.
‘This isn’t the end of the western world as we know it,’ he tells Public Finance. At a loss to explain this year’s surges, he adds: ‘It’s a very strange phenomenon that hasn’t happened before.’
Solace is conducting its own inquiry into what happened. It estimates that around 20 constituencies experienced difficulties.‘This is a sign of how antiquated and difficult to manage our electoral system is. It’s a very old-fashioned system, we’re flogging it to death in the twenty-first century and it’s not suitable for purpose.’
Turner says that returning officers might have wanted to split the larger polling stations into two, doubling the rate at which voters could be processed. However, this would have required twice as many staff on limited funds.
Nevertheless, Monks says that one big lesson of May 6 is that some polling stations – particularly those in big cities with up to 6,000 voters on the register – need to be split. He recommends only 2,500 voters should be on the register for any single polling station, but would also like wider reforms, such as electronic registers that enable voters to cast their ballot at any polling station in their constituency.
Monks suggests that pressure from MPs could have contributed to the strain the system was under. A late amendment to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act – which was only given Royal Assent last month – obliged returning officers to begin their counts before 2am or publicly explain why they didn’t.
‘I think some people probably took staff off polling stations to get them ready and fresh for the count… I only think the impact was marginal, though others may reveal they did that in the investigation we’re carrying out.’
With the UK entering uncharted political waters this week, and speculation rife over how long any government without a decisive majority can last, Monks might have to put the findings of that inquiry to the test sooner than many of us would like.
